In an exercise, a Kuwaiti F18 Hornet fighter aircraft stages an attack on Royal Navy Type 23 frigate HMS St Albans. Currently, Israel and all six GCC countries are armed with state-of-the art fighter planes, mostly from the United States. Credit: Simmo Simpson/OGL license

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 23 2015 (IPS)

The nuclear agreement concluded last week between Iran and six big powers, the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, is threatening to trigger a new Middle East military build-up – not with nuclear weapons but with conventional arms, including fighter planes, combat helicopters, warships, missiles, battle tanks and heavy artillery.

The United States is proposing to beef up the military forces of some of its close allies, such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, with additional weapons systems to counter any attempts by Iran to revitalise its own armed forces when U.N. and U.S. sanctions are eventually lifted releasing resources for new purchases.“Even though the agreement was just signed on July 14th, countries are apparently already jockeying to see what U.S. conventional weapons they can get out of the deal." -- Dr. Natalie J. Goldring

All six countries, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are predominantly Sunni Muslims as against Shia Iran.

According to one news report, the administration of President Barack Obama is also considering an increase in the hefty annual 3.0-billion-dollar military grant – free, gratis and non-repayable – traditionally provided to Israel over the years to purchase U.S weapons systems.

The proposed increase is being described as a “consolation prize” to Israel which has denounced the nuclear deal as a “historic mistake.”

Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a Senior Fellow with the Security Studies Programme in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, told IPS although the nuclear agreement with Iran is likely to aid nuclear nonproliferation efforts, it may also result in a dangerous increase in the proliferation of conventional weapons to the region.

“Even though the agreement was just signed on July 14th, countries are apparently already jockeying to see what U.S. conventional weapons they can get out of the deal,” she said.

On the other hand, the longstanding sanctions against transfers of major conventional weapons, missiles, and missile systems to Iran will continue for several years under the nuclear agreement, she pointed out.

Even so, Gulf states and Israel are reportedly already lining up for more weapons from the United States.

As usual, their argument seems to be that the weapons are needed for their own defence, she added.

“But who are they defending against? Is the presumed adversary Iran, which remains under a conventional weapons embargo? And who has the military advantage?” asked Dr Goldring, who also represents the Acronym Institute at the United Nations on conventional weapons and arms trade issues.

According to The New York Times, she said, Iran’s military budget is only about a tenth of the combined military budgets of the Sunni states and Israel.

The Times said the Arab Gulf nations spend a staggering 130 billion dollars annually on defence while Iran’s annual military budget is about 15 billion dollars.

Israel spends about 16 billion dollars annually on its defence, plus the 3.0 billion it receives as U.S. military grants.

Nicole Auger, Middle East & Africa Analyst and International Defense Budgets Analyst at Forecast International, a leading U.S. defence research company, told IPS the Times figures are pretty much on target.

Furthermore, she said, the Sunni dominated nations (read: Gulf states) and Israel have strengths that their Iranian rival does not.

“Despite Iran’s manpower advantage and large arsenal of rockets and missiles, the GCC combined and Israel have far greater air power capabilities, not to mention superior aircraft platforms,” said Auger, author of International Military Markets, Middle East & Africa.

The modern, Western hardware purchased through the past decade stands in direct contrast to the ageing inventory of Iranian forces, she added.

Currently, Israel and all six GCC countries are armed with state-of-the art fighter planes, mostly from the United States.

Israel’s air force is equipped with F-16s, Saudi Arabia, with F-15s and Eurofighter Typhoons, UAE, with F-16s. Kuwait, with Boeing F/A-18C Fighters and Qatar, with Dassault-Mirage 2000-5, eventually to be replaced with the Rafale fighter plane both from France.

Auger said Iran’s most modern fighter is the MiG-29, delivered in the early 1990s.

The rest of the fighter force includes aged U.S.-supplied F-14s, F-4s, and F-5s, as well as Russian-supplied Su-24 attack jets and Dassault Aviation Mirage F-1AD fighter-bombers.

But most of them have remained grounded for lack of spares due to economic and military sanctions by the United States, the European Union and the United Nations.

Dr Goldring told IPS it has to be acknowledged that the United States and its negotiating partners have secured an important agreement with Iran, which should make it more difficult for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

This agreement should also significantly reduce the likelihood of a U.S. war with Iran. The agreement is a good deal for the United States, its negotiating partners, its allies in the Middle East, and Iran, she added..

Still, the U.S. government is once again contemplating providing highly sophisticated weapons to Middle Eastern nations, even though some of the prospective recipients have horrendous human rights records and questionable internal stability.

Continuing to sell our most modern weapons and technologies also makes it more likely that U.S. military officials will soon be testifying before Congress that they need new weapons systems because the current technologies have already been dispersed around the world, she noted.

“We’ve seen this script before. This approach ignores the risks posed by weapons transfers, and increases the risk that our military personnel will end up fighting our own weapons,” said Dr Goldring.

She pointed out that the prospect of increasing conventional weapons sales as a result of the Iran agreement “looks like a sweet deal for the arms merchants, but not for the rest of us. “

It’s long past time to break out of the traditional pattern of the U.S. government using conventional weapons transfers as bargaining chips.

“Middle Eastern countries need to reduce their stockpiles of conventional weapons, not increase them,” she declared.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

The continuing decline in oil prices has already reduced purchasing power and impacted negatively on some of the world's currencies. Credit/Justin R/cc by 2.0

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 2 2015 (IPS)

In a satirical piece titled ‘An Unserious Look at the Year Ahead’ in the Wall Street Journal last week, Hugo Rifkind predicts the price of a barrel of oil will fall so low that people across the world would start buying oil for the barrel – and throw the oil out.

The journalistic spoof about the oil market may be an improbable scenario, but in reality the sharp decline in prices has generated both good and bad news – mostly bad.If Middle Eastern sales flatten out or decrease, arms companies may fight harder for contracts in other parts of the world where military expenditure is still on the increase and less dependent on oil prices, such as in North, South East and South Asia.

In the United States, the fall in oil prices is being viewed as an unexpected – but welcome – stimulus to the country’s recession-struck economy.

As one U.S. newspaper headline read: ‘For (U.S. President Barack) Obama, Low Oil Prices Bring Hope’

The London Economist points out that a 40-dollar price cut would shift about 1.3 trillions dollars from oil producers to consumers.

But in the developing world, the current plunge is threatening to undermine oil-dependent economies in Africa, Asia, Latin American and the Middle East.

The continuing decline – from around 107 dollars per barrel last June to less than 70 dollars last month – has already reduced purchasing power and impacted negatively on some of the world’s currencies, including the ruble (Russia), real (Brazil), rupiah (Indonesia), bolivar (Venezuela), naira (Nigeria), peso (Chile), lira (Turkey) and ringgit (Malaysia).

But sooner or later the fall in oil prices is also likely to have a negative impact on both military spending and the thriving multi-billion-dollar arms market in the Middle East.

Perhaps for peace activists, this may be a positive sign in the global campaign for disarmament – mostly in conventional arms.

Arms buying by the six Gulf monarchies alone – Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain – have been traditionally fueled by rising oil incomes: more incomes, more state-of-the art weapons.

The exceptions in the Middle East are Israel and Egypt, which depend heavily on U.S. military grants that are gratis and non-repayable.

Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Arms Transfers and Arms Production Programme, at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS lower oil revenues will undoubtedly put pressure on the military expenditure of Middle Eastern states, as in the past.

Saudi Arabia’s arms imports peaked in the 1990s, he said, but then fell rapidly, partly because of oil price-related lower government revenues.

“However, for 2013, we estimated Saudi Arabia will be the world’s fourth largest military spender [about 67 billion dollars] and the UAE the fifteenth largest [19 billion dollars],” said Wezeman, who closely tracks the Middle Eastern arms market.

The world’s three largest military spenders are the United States (640 billion dollars), China (188 billion) and Russia (88 billion), according to 2013 figures released by SIPRI.

Striking a cautionary note, Wezeman said it is, however, too early to say anything about this with certainty, as the arms procuring states in question tend to be highly secretive and undemocratic about military matters and arms procurement programmes and plans.

“They may very well decide to cut spending in other sectors instead, if lower oil prices force them to cut overall government spending,” he declared.

Unveiling its 2015 budget last week, Saudi Arabia said it was “rationalising” its expenditure, but did not specify any details.

According to estimates by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Saudi Arabia’s total foreign exchange reserves amount to about 750 billion dollars.

Nicole Auger, a military analyst covering the Middle East and Africa at Forecast International, a leader in defence market intelligence and industry forecasting, told IPS a projected five-year defence spending (2015-2019) for the Middle East region shows the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) at approximately 3.48 percent.

This number is lower than the past five years’ CAGR (2010-2014), which was 8.45 percent.

“I do credit some of this decline to the anticipated fall in oil prices,” she said.

For Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE, this trend will only serve as a nuisance they can comfortably withstand for a few years – “so I do not expect any significant changes in their defence spending tendencies.”

These markets are huge, and they all spend lavishly on building up their defence capabilities, she said.

Saudi Arabia alone has the world’s fourth-largest military budget and will continue to dominate the Middle East arms market, with a defence budget nearly four times the size of the next closest Middle East military investor, she noted.

“I don’t see a major change in Iran and Iraq’s defence spending trends, even though they stand to be the most hurt by this.”

Auger said due to other regional and internal fractures, these two neighbours will have to maintain their defence spending levels as a cautionary measure.

Even though Iran is already suffering from international sanctions with its unresolved nuclear issue, it still feels it is being threatened, and therefore lower defence spending will only make it more vulnerable from its own perspective, she added.

“With Iraq, you may see them lean more heavily on its allies,” Auger said.

SIPRI’s Wezeman told IPS the importance of the Middle Eastern market for arms producing companies is the fact that sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia alone accounted for 20 percent of sales in 2013 for the third largest arms producer in the world, BAE systems.

And the second largest arms producer, Boeing, sees declining sales of combat aircraft to its main client the United States, and is increasingly dependent on exports, he added.

At the same time, Wezeman said, there are signs the military industry in the region is growing too, though it is still small compared to arms industries in the traditional arms producing countries.

If Middle Eastern sales will flatten out or decrease, he predicted, arms companies will have to fight harder for contracts in other parts of the world where military expenditure is still on the increase and less dependent on oil prices, such as in North, South East and South Asia.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

The Tupolev Tu-is a large, four-engine turboprop powered strategic bomber and missile platform. First flown in 1952, the Tu-95 was put into service by the former Soviet Union in 1956 and is expected to serve the Russian Air Force until at least 2040. Credit: Dmitry Terekhov/cc by 2.0

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 16 2014 (IPS)

The world’s top 100 arms producing companies racked up 402 billion dollars in weapons sales and military services in 2013, according to the latest figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

But this was a decrease of about 2.0 percent over the previous year, and the third consecutive year of decline in total arms sales by these defence contractors.

Still, Russian companies increased their sales by about 20 percent in 2013 compared with U.S. and Western arms manufacturers.

Siemon Wezeman, senior researcher with SIPRI’s Arms and Military Expenditure Programme, said “the remarkable increases” in Russian companies arms sales in both 2012 and 2013 are in large part due to uninterrupted investments in military procurement by the Russian government during the 2000s.

“These investments are explicitly intended to modernise national production capabilities and weapons in order to bring them on par with major U.S. and Western European arms producers’ capabilities and technologies,” he added.

But these gains, however, were registered long before the Russian intervention in Ukraine and Crimea last February.

With economic and military sanctions imposed by the United States and Western Europe against Moscow this year, there is a possibility that Russian arms sales, particularly exports, may suffer when new figures are released for 2014.

Asked about a potential decline, Wezeman told IPS “it is almost impossible to make predictions.”

The sanctions will not have a great effect on the short term, but the Russian industry may feel them if the sanctions stay in place for some years, he added.

According to SIPRI figures, Western Europe offered a more mixed picture, with French companies increasing their sales, while sales by British companies remained stable, and sales by Italian and Spanish arms-producing companies continuing to decline.

The share of global arms sales for companies outside North America and Western Europe has been increasing since 2005, says Dr. Aude Fleurant, director of SIPRI’s Arms and Military Expenditure Programme.

The Russian company with the largest increase in sales in 2103 is Tactical Missiles Corporation, with a growth of 118 per cent, followed by Almaz-Antey (34 per cent) and United Aircraft Corporation (20 per cent), according to SIPRI.

Almaz-Anteys arms sales in 2013 make it the 12th-largest arms producer (excluding China) and bring it closer to the top 10, which has been exclusively populated by arms producers from the United States or Western Europe since the end of the Cold War.

The year 2013 also saw the introduction of a 10th Russian arms company, communication and electronics manufacturer Sozvezdie, to the SIPRI list of top 100.

Wezeman told IPS Russia has for some years realised it is technologically behind in many aspects of weaponry and that it will need foreign input to develop new generations of weapons.

It has been looking for Western companies to partner with in the development of new generations of weapons and key components, he noted. Russia has been negotiating with European companies on cooperation in wheeled armoured vehicles, jet engines and avionics.

“The sanctions have killed those talks and that leaves Russia in the position it was before – not having all the technology and not having the funds or the expertise to develop it all on its own,” Wezeman said.

He said sanctions have also put pressure on production and development of Russian weapons for export.

Some of the most advanced Russian export weapons (e.g. Su-30 combat aircraft) rely on Western components and the sanctions seem to also ban such components – but only if they are part of new agreements, since the European Union sanctions ban sales under agreements reached after the sanctions were agreed.

Wezeman also said Russian officials have complained for years that arms factories are outdated with worn-out production equipment. A major plan has been announced to modernise the factories, but Russia just doesn’t have the technology to do it on its own, he added.

“It needs input from more developed Western countries, but that is largely out of the question, with sanctions and the whole changed Western relations with Russia,” he noted.

Asked if Russian arms sales will be affected by sanctions, Wezeman said in the short term Russia’s exports are unlikely to take a hit.

Probably the first exports that could suffer would be helicopters and trainer aircraft using Ukrainian-produced engines, he predicted.

Ukraine seems to have stopped all arms deliveries to Russia, including components such as engines for Mi-17 and Mi-24 helicopters and Yak-130 trainer/combat aircraft (officially it has, but it is a bit uncertain if that embargo is 100 percent or if it excludes such components used in weapons that are meant to be exported from Russia), he said.

With India and China defying U.S. and Western sanctions, Russia now finds it even more important to look for partners in large markets in Asia, including joint technology agreements in the development of new weapons.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

Which story line sounds the more credible – that linking the rebel movement ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) to policies pursued by Iran or that linking the Sunni extremist force to Iran’s adversary Saudi Arabia?

In June this year, fighters belonging to ISIS – a rebel movement that had previously established its foothold in the oil-rich areas of north-eastern Syria – succeeded in capturing Mosul, a city surrounded by oil fields in northern Iraq. Ever since, commentators in the world’s media have been speculating on the origins of the dreaded organisation’s military success.

It is admitted that the occupation of Mosul and vast tracts of the Sunni-dominated portion of Iraq would not have been possible except for the fact that ISIS forged a broad grassroots’ alliance expressing deep discontent by Iraq’s minority Sunnis with the policies of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s government. Nor would Mosul have fallen but for the dramatic desertion by top-officers of Iraq’s state army.

Peter Custers

Yet various observers have meanwhile focused on the political economy behind the advance of ISIS. Some experts from U.S. think tanks have discussed the likely sources of ISIS’ finance, pinpointing private donors in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Other writers instead have connected ISIS’ reliance on black market sales of oil in Kurdish territory with Iranian exports of crude, described as “illegal”.

I propose putting the spotlight on the methods of war financing used by ISIS, but first it is necessary to highlight the movement’s complete sectarianism.

Soon after the occupation of Mosul, rebels blew up and bulldozed shrines and mosques in the city belonging to Shia Muslims. Pictures on the demolition of these buildings were circulated widely by the world’s mainstream media. Unfortunately, few Western journalists cared to draw attention to the role which destruction of shrines has played in the history of Islam.

Contrary to Catholicism, the veneration of saints at Sufi and Shia tombs and shrines basically reflects heterodox tendencies within the Islamic faith. On the other hand, Sunni orthodoxy and especially its Saudi variety, Wahhabism, either condemns intercession or, at the least, considers the worshipping of saints at tombs to be unacceptable. Islam’s minority of Shias, and its mystical current of Sufism, freely engage in such worship – and this throughout the Muslim world.“ISIS is … a ‘religiously inspired’ Sunni extremist organisation with an utterly secular objective: to control the bulk of oil resources in two Middle Eastern states in order to re-establish acaliphat, an all-Islamic state-entity guided by a central religious authority”

ISIS’ work of demolition in Iraq can in no way be equated with practices of Iran’s Shia rulers. Instead, they express the extremist movement’s affinity with policies long championed by Saudi Arabia. Ever since the founding of the Saudi state, numerous Shia and Sufi shrines have been rased to the ground at the behest of this country’s Wahhabi dynasty.

What does the political economy behind ISIS’ military advance in Syria and Iraq tell us about the organisation’s affinities? First, in one sense, the ISIS strategy might be interpreted as rather novel.

Whereas the extraction of raw materials is a war strategy pursued by numerous rebel movements in the global South – see, for example, UNITA’s extraction of diamonds in the context of Angola’s civil war, and the trade in coltan by rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo – rarely has a Southern rebel movement succeeded in turning crude oil into its chief source of revenue.

Indeed, whereas ISIS originally relied on private funders in Saudi Arabia to build up a force of trained fighters, the organisation has consciously targeted regions in Syria and Iraq harbouring major oil fields and (in the case of Iraq) oil refineries. By laying siege to the oil refinery at Baiji, responsible for processing one-third of oil consumed in Iraq, ISIS hoped to undermine the state’s control of oil resources.

Further, some 450 million dollars was stolen by ISIS fighters from a subsidiary of Iraq’s central bank after the occupation of Mosul. This reportedly was all income from oil extraction. Some observers put the cash income which ISIS derives from smuggled oil at one million dollars a day!

ISIS is thus a ‘religiously inspired’ Sunni extremist organisation with an utterly secular objective: to control the bulk of oil resources in two Middle Eastern states in order to re-establish acaliphat, an all-Islamic state-entity guided by a central religious authority.

Yet though ISIS’ methodology of reliance on oil for financing of its war campaigns is novel for a rebel movement, such use of oil is not unique in the context of the Middle East. Ever since the 1970s, most oil-rich countries of the region have squandered a major part of their income from the exports of crude by (indirectly) exchanging their main natural resource against means of destruction – weapon systems bought on the international market.

And while Iran under the Shah was equally enticed into opting for this form of trade in the 1970s, – it is the Wahhabi kingdom of Saudi Arabia which all the way through from the oil crisis of 1973 onwards and up to today has functioned as the central axe of such a trade mechanism.

Witness, for instance, the 1980s oil-for-arms (!) ‘barter deal’ between the Saudi kingdom and the United Kingdom, the so-called ‘Al Yamamah’ deal, and the 60 billion dollar, largest-ever international arms’ agreement between Saudi Arabia and the United States clinched in 2010.

Forward to 2014, and an Iraq desperately struggling to survive. A section of the world’s media has already announced its impending demise, predicting a split of the country into three portions – Sunni, Kurdish and Shia. On the other hand, some commentators have advised that the United States should now change gear and line up with Iran, in order to help the Iraqi government overcome its domestic political crisis.

Yet the United States and its European allies for long, too long, have bent over to service the Wahhabi state. Even as Western politicians loudly proclaimed their allegiance to democracy and secularism, they failed to oppose or counter Saudi Arabia’s oppression of, and utter discrimination against, Shia citizens.

For over 40 years they opted to close their eyes and supply Saudi Arabia with massive quantities of fighter planes, missiles and other weaponry, in exchange for the country’s crude. Playing the role of a wise elderly senior brother, the United States has recently advised Iraq’s prime minister al-Maliki, known for his sectarian approach, that he should be more ‘inclusive’, meaning sensitive towards Iraq’s minority Sunni population.

But has the United States’ prime Middle Eastern ally Saudi Arabia ever been chastised over its systematic discrimination of Shias? Has it ever been put to task for its cruel oppression of heterodox Muslims? And has the United States ever pondered the implications of the trading mechanism of disparate exchange it sponsored – for the future of democracy, food sovereignty and people’s welfare in the Middle East?

*  Peter Custers, an academic researcher on Islam and religious tolerance  with field work in South Asia, is also a theoretician on the arms’ trade and extraction of raw materials in the context of conflicts in the global South. He is the author of ‘Questioning Globalized Militarism’. 

An Egyptian army M1 Abrams tank placed near Tahrir Square during the 2011 Egyptian protests. Credit: Sherif9282 GNU license

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 16 2013 (IPS)

The United States, which has refused to cut off its hefty 1.3 billion dollars in annual military aid to Egypt, continues to argue that depriving arms to the 438,500-strong security forces will only “destabilise” the crisis-ridden country.

There is perhaps a more significant – but undisclosed – reason for sustaining military aid flows to Egypt: protecting U.S. defence contractors.

Virtually all – or an overwhelming proportion – of the 1.3 billion dollars granted under Foreign Military Financing (FMF) is plowed back into the U.S. economy, specifically into the U.S. defence industry.

William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Centre for International Policy (CIP), told IPS U.S. President Barack Obama’s refusal to cut-off military aid to Egypt while U.S. weapons are being used to murder protesters is “unconscionable”.

“The reasons given for continuing this aid no longer hold up to scrutiny. It is not a source of stability, as the Obama administration claims,” he said.

And it has certainly not given the United States any leverage to moderate the behaviour of the regime, said Hartung, who has written extensively on the politics and economics of the U.S. defence industry.

“One thing the aid has done and continues to do is to enrich U.S. defence contractors like Lockheed and General Dynamics,” he added.

With the exception of a tank factory built with U.S. assistance, he pointed out, the vast bulk of the roughly 40 billion dollars in U.S. military aid to Egypt over the past 30 years has gone straight into the coffers of U.S. weapons makers.

The sophisticated weapons systems already purchased by Egypt – with much more still in the pipeline – include F-16 fighter planes, E2-C Hawkeye reconnaissance aircraft, Apache and Sikorsky helicopters, C-130 transports, Sidewinder, Sparrow, Improved-Hawk and Hellfire missiles, M-1A1 Abrams and M60A1 battle tanks, and M113A2 armoured personnel carriers.

All of these weapons have either been delivered – or are in the process of being delivered – by some of the major U.S. defence contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Electric, Boeing, Sikorsky, General Dynamics, United Defence and Raytheon, among others.

Besides the 1.3 billion dollars in FMF outright grants, Egypt also receives 1.9 million dollars annually for International Military Education and Training (IMET) and about 250,000 dollars in Economic Support Funds (ESF).

Egypt also receives, at minimum cost as delivery charges, second-hand U.S. equipment under Excess Defence Articles (EDA) worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

The U.S. defence contractor General Dynamics is involved in helping Egypt co-produce the M1A1 Abrams battle tank, described as “one of the cornerstones of U.S. military assistance to Egypt”.

Additionally, there is an ongoing programme to continue upgrading equipment in the Egyptian arsenal and follow-on support and maintenance contracts for the upkeep of U.S. equipment.

In a piece published in Common Dreams online, Jacob Chamberlain, a staff writer, quotes a report from National Public Radio (NPR) as saying that every year, the U.S. Congress appropriates more than one billion dollars in military aid to Egypt.

“But that money never gets to Egypt. It goes to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, then to a trust fund at the Treasury and, finally, out to U.S. military contractors that make the tanks and fighter jets that ultimately get sent to Egypt.”

So far, the Obama administration has penalised Egypt by suspending the delivery of four F-16 fighter planes (the Egyptian air force already has 143 F-16s, with the last order of 20 dating back to March 2010 still in the pipeline) and the cancellation of joint military exercises with Egypt scheduled for September.

The Obama administration has also refused to describe the military takeover of a civilian government as a “coup” because under U.S. legislation such a designation would automatically generate a cut off of U.S. aid.

As of Friday, the death toll from the military crackdown has been estimated at between 500 and 1,000, with nearly 4,000 injured.

Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher with the Arms Transfers Programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS, “It is correct that the U.S. military industry benefits from U.S. military aid to Egypt.

“And it is correct that if the United States would stop altogether with supplying such aid to Egypt, that would have some effect on the turnover of the U.S. arms industry,” he added.

However, he said, “I am doubtful if arms industry lobbying [or] concern for the arms industry is a reason of any significance for the U.S. to not halt all FMF aid to Egypt.”

There are several reasons, he said, including a temporary stop which would have only a minor effect.

“After all, some of the equipment that has been contracted for can be produced and stored by the U.S. government – which is, after all, the entity that signed the contracts with the U.S. industry – until the situation in Egypt changes.”

Presumably, funding not earmarked can be withheld and would benefit the industry later, he added.

Moreover, said Wezeman, the U.S. has embargoed major buyers of U.S. arms and cut military aid before, despite the obvious costs for the industry.

The best examples are Iran in 1979 – although that was arguably as well a decision by Iran at that time – Pakistan in early 1990s and India in 1963.

Citing other examples, he said, in the case of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the U.S. has foregone some major deals due to the fact they did want to supply certain advanced equipment. For example, it is generally assumed that France clinched a major deal for combat aircraft in the late 1990s because it included 300 km range cruise missiles which the U.S. had refused.

Military aid to countries like Greece has diminished from high in the 1980 and ’90s to a very low level now.

Wezeman said although 1.3 billion dollars a year is a lot of money, it is relatively small compared to the current cutbacks in U.S. military spending and the sequestration issue, which will have a much bigger effect on the U.S. arms industry.

Protesters battle police in Cairo’s Tahrir Square on the second anniversary of Egypt’s January 25 revolution. Credit: Khaled Moussa al-Omrani/IPS

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 9 2013 (IPS)

When the dust settles from the ongoing deadly confrontations between the Egyptian armed forces and thousands of Islamist protesters in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria, the eventual winner will be the United States – specifically U.S.-made weapons systems in the hands of the country’s 440,000-strong military.

At last count, over 50 demonstrators were killed and more than 400 wounded in the military rampage Monday as the political crisis in Egypt spun out of control.

With massive firepower at its command, the Egyptian security forces are armed with a wide range of mostly U.S-supplied weapons, ranging from fighter planes, combat helicopters, warships and missiles to riot-controlled equipment such as armoured personnel carriers, recoilless rifles, sub-machine guns, rubber bullets, handguns and tear gas grenades.

Virtually all of these weapons have been provided under non-repayable, outright U.S. military grants ever since Egypt signed the U.S.-brokered Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel back in September 1978.

As the second largest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel, Egypt receives about 1.5 billion dollars in both military and economic aid annually, of which 1.3 billion dollars is earmarked for the armed forces.

Nicole Auger, a military analyst covering the Middle East and Africa at Forecast International, a leader in defence market intelligence and industry forecasting, told IPS the United States is “the overwhelming (arms) supplier to Egypt”.

She said about 35 percent of the 1.3 billion dollars in annual U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grants is utilised each year for the purchase of new U.S. weapons systems.

Of the balance, about 30 percent is earmarked for the purchase and maintenance of U.S. equipment (including the procurement of ammunition for that equipment), with 20 percent covering the ongoing costs of programmes being implemented, and 15 percent being used to supplement and upgrade equipment currently in service.

Egypt is also eligible to receive surplus U.S. equipment under the Excess Defense Articles (EDA) programme, mostly on a cost-free basis, she pointed out.

Additionally, Egypt receives grants under the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programme, amounting to about 1.3 million to about 1.9 million dollars annually, plus about 250 million dollars annually in economic aid.

According to figures released by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Egypt received about 11.8 billion dollars worth of weapons from the United States during 2004-2011, followed by 900 million dollars each in arms from China and Russia, and 700 million dollars in arms from Europe.

Although for all intents and purposes, the upheaval in Egypt has been described as a military coup, the administration of President Barack Obama has shied away from that categorisation, arguing the military takeover was triggered by civilian demands.

In an op-ed published in the New York Times Monday, Khaled M. Abou El Fadl, a law professor at the University of California, wrote: “By stepping in to remove an unpopular president, the Egyptian army re-affirmed a despotic tradition in the Middle East: army officers decide what the country needs, and they always know best.”

Under current U.S. legislation, it is mandatory for the United States to cut off aid to any country where the military takes power and ousts a democratically elected government – as happened in previous years in Fiji, Cote d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic, among others.

After country-wide elections, Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was sworn in as the country’s first democratically-elected president in June 2012.

But so far, the White House has refused to cut off aid to Egypt, hoping to use it as leverage to restore civilian rule.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday, “We are going to examine this and monitor this, and take the time necessary in making the determination in a manner that’s consistent with our policy objectives and our national security interests.

“But we do not believe that it is in our interests to make a precipitous decision or determination to change our assistance programme right away,” he said.

Still, there are several U.S. legislators, including Senators John McCain (Republican of Arizona), Patrick Leahy (Democrat of Vermont), and Carl Levin (Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Armed Services Committee) who have called for a suspension of U.S. aid to Egypt until the restoration of democracy.

Prior to the Camp David peace treaty, Egypt was a long-time recipient of Soviet weaponry under a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Moscow. The Aswan Dam, a major economic showpiece, was built with financial assistance from the then Soviet Union.

But with the Camp David accords, Egypt switched its political and military loyalties from the Soviet Union to the United States.

Still, Egypt remains in the process of steadily weaning itself off former Soviet legacy hardware; prior to 1978, the Egyptian Army was largely equipped with Soviet weaponry.

Chinese tanks in formation at Shenyang training base in China. Credit: public domain

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 18 2013 (IPS)

After ranking ahead of Japan as the world’s second largest economy, China has reached another milestone: displacing the UK as the world’s fifth largest arms supplier.

In a new study released Monday, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said, “This is the first time China has been in the top five arms exporters since the end of the Cold War (in 1992).”

Asked how Chinese arms compare with some of the more sophisticated Western weapons systems, Dr. Paul Holtom, senior researcher and director of the Arms Transfers Programme at SIPRI, told IPS, “It is perhaps also more pertinent to ask how Chinese weapons for export compare to those being offered by Russia, Ukraine etc. as it is with these suppliers that China is likely to be a rival in the short-to medium-term.”

Holtom said the profile of China’s recipients remains predominantly lower income states in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Americas.

China’s rise has been driven primarily by large-scale arms acquisitions by Pakistan, a country once described by a Chinese delegate as “our Israel”.

The United States is currently the largest supplier of weapons to Israel, a longtime political, economic and military ally, which is heavily protected against any forms of sanctions in the Security Council.

According to SIPRI, the five largest suppliers of major conventional weapons during the five-year period 2008-12 were the United States (30 percent of global arms exports), Russia (26 percent), Germany (seven percent), France (six percent) and China (five percent).

This is the first time that the UK has not been in the top five since at least 1950, the earliest year covered by SIPRI data.

Overall, the volume of international transfers of major conventional weapons grew by 17 percent between 2003-2007 and between 2008-12, according to the study.

Traditionally, the world’s five major arms exporters have been the five permanent members of the Security Council, the only U.N. body with the power to declare war and peace.

Germany, currently the third largest arms supplier, is a not a permanent member of the Security Council, but the UK is.

Besides being an exporter, China was also a key arms importer during the period 2008-12

Asia and Oceania accounted for almost half (47 percent) of global imports of major conventional weapons.

The top five importers of major conventional weapons worldwide were India (12 per cent of global imports), China (six percent), Pakistan (five percent), South Korea (five percent), and Singapore (four percent) – all in Asia.

These sales come at a time of heightening tensions over territorial disputes in the East and South China seas.

Asked if most developing countries were attracted to Chinese weapons due to discounted prices, or due to the fact that Beijing does not lay down political conditions, including human rights standards, Holtom told IPS it is difficult to definitively say what the main attraction is.

Cost and also the terms of the arrangements – e.g. long-term low interest loans, barter etc. – will obviously be an important element in procurement considerations, he pointed out.

The issue of “security of supply” could also be a factor.

From the perspective of some analysts in Moscow, for example, the decision to include S-300 SAM systems in the scope of the Russian arms embargo on Iran damaged Russia’s reputation with regards to a “secure source of arms supplies” and there is a fear that China will be a beneficiary of this.

Holtom said Wikileaks, the online organisation known to publish classified documents, indicates that Chinese companies are also sensitive to issues of human rights concerns and pressure from the United States.

“But it is likely to still be regarded as a ‘secure source of arms supplies’ compared with some of the other major suppliers that assess arms export against a wider range of criteria than China – e.g. European Union member states apply the eight criteria of the EU Common Position relating to serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, impact on conflict and instability and diversion risks,” he said.

He said China’s three principles on arms sales are: contribution to the self-defence capability of the recipient state; not harming the peace, security and stability of the region or world; non-interference in the recipient country’s internal affairs.

Holtom also pointed out there have been very significant developments with regards to the Chinese arms industry since the reforms of the late 1990s.

However, he said it is perhaps important to stress that some sectors are able to deliver more advanced systems than others, and that there is also a difference between systems that are being produced for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and those that are being produced for export.

The items that feature in SIPRI data on deliveries remain low-cost and dated systems, such as the F-7 combat aircraft.

However, the JF-17/FC-1 has been developed and delivered to Pakistan and this has been an important factor for China’s rise in the SIPRI statistics and there is interest from a number of states.

Like the J-10 combat aircraft, these items contain Russian components that could come into play with regards to export prospects and competition.

With regards to battle tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, frigates, anti-ship missiles and Man Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS), China has secured some clients that are perhaps attracted by the lower costs of these items and anecdotally there are comments that both the equipment, terms of the deals and training are improving.

The Control Arms coalition demonstrated in front of the United Nations on Jul. 25, 2012, reminding delegates negotiating the ATT of the price paid every day by armed violence. Credit: Coralie Tripier/IPS

By Carey L. Biron
WASHINGTON, Feb 12 2013 (IPS)

With a new round of negotiations for an international treaty regulating the international trade of small-scale weapons slated for next month, advocates here have stepped up a campaign to clarify what exactly the treaty is trying to accomplish – and to eliminate some opposition to the treaty from within the U.S. Congress that, they say, is based on misinformation.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), a lobby group, “and its allies have mounted a campaign of lies and deliberate distortions to build American opposition to an international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that will keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers around the globe,” according to a campaign launched Tuesday by Oxfam America, an international humanitarian group.

Warning that there are far more regulations on the international sale of fruit or electronics than for many weapons, Oxfam and other campaigners are calling for a treaty that includes a prohibition on arms transfers if it is clear they will facilitate mass atrocities; that includes all “conventional” weapons and ammunition; and that does not include loopholes for any specific countries.“Prior to the last few months, the ATT seemed like a way for the NRA to mobilise its base when there was no real discussion in Congress on gun control – they had to find a new bogeyman, and that was the U.N.”

Under the auspices of the United Nations, negotiations towards an ATT will recommence for 10 days in late March in New York.

Following three years of preparations, a month of talks on a draft ATT were shelved in late July when representatives from the United States, together with the Russian and Chinese delegations, made a surprise announcement that they needed more time. That declaration came after civil society observers had expressed increasing frustration at procedural delays and an apparent lack of seriousness on the part of some negotiators.

The end of the July round of talks also coincided with a forceful campaign against any treaty by the NRA, which for years has been the strongest voice against gun control here in the United States.

In late July, the NRA publicly took credit for “killing” the ATT, and for letters to the president from dozens of members of the U.S. Congress (from 51 senators and 130 representatives) noting “strong opposition” to any treaty.

But just a day after his re-election, in early November, President Barack Obama signalled his intent to move forward on a new round of talks.

“Just as the NRA warned would happen,” the group stated in response to Obama’s statement. “Needless to say, our position will remain the same on any treaty that could adversely affect the rights of American gun owners.”

In mid-January, a Republican state senator in Virginia tabled a resolution opposing any future ATT, despite the fact that the treaty’s text remains far from finalised.

Mobilising the base

The NRA’s position is based on two purported grievances: first, that an ATT would infringe on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (on the “right to keep and bear arms”), and, second, that such a treaty would require countries to create national registries on gun owners.

Yet according to a new Oxfam America policy brief distributed to members of Congress on Tuesday, neither of these points holds up under any scrutiny.

On the first point, the draft ATT text, which will serve as the starting point for the March negotiations, states that regulation of conventional arms within national territory will remain the “sovereign right and responsibility” of each national government. It also explicitly recognises the traditional uses of guns for hunting and related activities.

On the second point, the treaty only covers the official import or export of weapons by national governments, and does not extend to domestic ownership. Further, the draft text only directs importing states to take steps to prevent weapons from entering the “illicit market or for unauthorized use”.

(By deadline, the NRA had not responded to request for comment for this story.)

“While it’s hard to say exactly what the impact of the NRA’s advocacy was on the negotiations, it’s interesting that most of what they were discussing was outside of the scope of the ATT talks,” Scott Stedjan, Oxfam America’s senior policy advisor, told IPS.

“Prior to the last few months, the ATT seemed like a way for the NRA to mobilise its base when there was no real discussion in Congress on gun control – they had to find a new bogeyman, and that was the U.N.”

As Stedjan notes, however, following the killing of more than two dozen people at an elementary school in the state of Connecticut in December, Washington lawmakers are currently engaged in the most significant policy discussion on gun control in decades, and the NRA is widely seen as being on the defensive.

It is important to note that there is no direct connection between the Washington discussion on domestic legislation and the upcoming ATT talks in New York. In this new context, however, Stedjan says his office is “hopeful” that the NRA will turn its focus to the domestic policy debate and roll back its opposition to the ATT.

Consensus unneeded

Others too are cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the March negotiations, citing extremely high international support and new procedural considerations.

An indication of that support came following the breakdown of talks in July. During a subsequent gathering of the U.N. General Assembly, there was unanimous backing for another round of related negotiations – the first time this had happened.

Further, in voting to allow another round of talks, the General Assembly tweaked the rules for agreement.

Ahead of last year’s discussions, President Obama had stipulated that any eventual ATT draft had to be agreed upon by consensus. If no agreement is arrived at in March, however, the issue will now be allowed to go to a vote in the General Assembly, where no consensus is required.

“There is reason for optimism that states will conclude an Arms Trade Treaty this year, but what’s most important is creating a strong treaty,” Jeff Abramson, director of the secretariat for Control Arms, an international civil society network, told IPS.

“Given that a treaty text will still be allowed to move ahead later in the year even if a single or small minority blocks consensus in March, this arrangement should enable states that want a strong treaty to succeed in securing one.”

Oxfam’s Stedjan agrees, noting that the ATT “must be able to impact on human rights around the world. If there is no agreement, we’re strongly encouraging negotiators not to sacrifice the substance of the treaty for the sake of consensus.”

At the height of the economic and financial crisis, the Spanish government is promoting the export of weapons, creating concern among civil society organisations that say commercial interests are prevailing over the law and human rights.

“At a time when commercial considerations are more prominent than regulations, arms are being sold to countries where human rights are violated and global conflicts are nurtured,” said Jesús Núñez, the co-director of the Institute of Studies on Conflicts and Humanitarian Action (IECAH).

Spanish law on foreign arms trade specifies that sales are not permitted when there is reason to believe that the weapons may be used in actions that disturb the peace, security and human rights in destination countries.

Núñez, an economist and retired military officer, told IPS this law “is not observed” because the economic interests of the government of the day prevail, especially since the Defence Ministry has had its budget for 2013 reduced by six percent compared to 2012, and is in debt to the tune of billions of dollars.

Weapons exports are flourishing in Spain. Carsten Lorentzen/CC BY 2.0

Thanks to the votes of the governing rightwing People’s Party (PP), on Sept. 20 parliament approved a credit of 1.78 billion euros (2.3 billion dollars) to pay the Defence Ministry’s debt to private arms suppliers, which amounts to 27 billion euros (35.8 billion dollars) according to official figures.

Meanwhile the Ministry of Economy announced that Spanish exports of defence materials amounted to 2.43 billion euros (3.15 billion dollars) last year, 115 percent more than in 2010.

Over half the sales were destined to Venezuela, followed by Australia, Norway, and to a lesser extent Colombia, Israel, Morocco and Pakistan, among others, according to the report “Spanish Statistics on the Export of Defence Material, Other Material and Dual Use Items and Technologies” by the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce.

“There’s a clear relation between the rise in arms sales and the increase in conflicts in the world,” Jordi Garrell, head of the Catalan Peace Association and coordinator of the campaign “Hidden Businesses”, promoted by Catalan social movements to denounce military security and armament build-up between Spain and Israel, told IPS.

“Operations that cannot be justified under Spanish law have been carried out, involving defence products reaching destinations where there is a risk that they will be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of human rights,” says a report issued by IECAH.

The report contains figures for sales of military equipment to Egypt, Bahrein and Saudi Arabia during the so-called Arab Spring, when popular uprisings in many places were violently repressed or gave rise to armed internal conflicts.

In fact, Carlos Villán, the president of the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law (AEDIDH), complained to IPS that the European Union did not establish “a real control mechanism” to make member states respect the ban on exporting “military technology and equipment” to countries with civil wars or where rights are violated.

In a Sept. 30 televised interview, former Spanish defence minister Eduardo Serra said he would not approve of sales of arms and defence material to a country if there was a risk of contributing to human rights violations. But he also said that to get things done, it was necessary to get one’s hands dirty.

Villán criticised the government’s lack of transparency on this issue because in Spain, already in sixth place for the volume of its arms exports in the world, civil society “cannot exercise effective control over sales by companies supported by the ministries of defence, foreign affairs and cooperation.”

Citizens do not have access to the information because sessions to regulate the government in parliament “are secret,” he said.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global arms trade was worth 1.7 trillion dollars last year, equivalent to 2.5 percent of world GDP.

“This absurdly large sum of money only benefits arms traders and exporters,” said Villán, who said this “clearly immoral” trade prospered because of the lack of international regulation.

A four-week conference involving 170 governments at the United Nations headquarters in New York, seeking an arms trade treaty, ended without agreement in late July.

In Villán’s view, the main arms exporting countries, headed by the United States, caused the negotiations to fail, and the arms trade continues to feed the 40 armed conflicts ongoing in the world today.

Resources that states devote to purchasing arms “are to the detriment of the economic and social development of their people,” he said.

U.S. President Barack Obama “did not cooperate to come up with a treaty,” Núñez said.

“The idea is not to ban the arms trade,” said Núñez, but there is evidently “a lack of political will” to reach an international agreement on the issue, because “governments prefer to have carte blanche.”

China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States supply around three-quarters of the world’s weapons, according to human rights watchdog Amnesty International’s web site. Of these countries, only Germany is not a member of the U.N. Security Council.

According to the 2012 Small Arms Survey, as much as 8.5 billion dollars is spent every year on the legal trade of small arms and light weapons. Credit: UN Photo/JC McIlwaine

By Coralie Tripier
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 28 2012 (IPS)

The goal of curbing small arms proliferation appears more elusive than ever, according to a report released this morning by the independent research project Small Arms Survey.

As much as 8.5 billion dollars is spent every year on authorised international transfers of small arms and light weapons, more than twice the previous estimate of 2006, according to Small Arms Survey’s annual flagship publication, the 2012 edition of which is titled “Moving Targets”. The project, based in Geneva, has been investigating small arms and light weapons across the world for more than 13 years.

Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), which range from handguns to landmines or hand grenades, cause many deaths and injuries across the world. The United Nations (U.N.) has been trying to reduce SALW trade for years.

“Across the world, violence carried out with small arms and light weapons undermines our efforts to promote sustainable development, protect human rights, build safer cities, improve public health, and help countries emerge from conflict,” stated U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the beginning of the survey.

“The casualties include children, the stability of entire societies, and public confidence in institutions,” Ban added.

The Small Arms Survey’s new report was released on the first day of the second review conference of the U.N. Programme of Action (PoA), at U.N. headquarters in New York.

U.N. member states agreed upon the PoA in 2001 with the goal of reducing the “human suffering caused by the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons” through “the promotion of a culture of peace”.

Yet more than a decade after the signing of the programme, the findings of the Small Arms Survey show that the PoA still has much to achieve.

The long-awaited Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which fell short of being ratified a few weeks ago at U.N. headquarters, could have been a major actor in reducing the trade in SALW. But the ATT negotiations did not reach an agreement, with countries opting for further talks and a possible General Assembly vote in October.

“(The ATT) is an ambitious undertaking and we will continue to watch it. It’s not yet a success, but we would not define it as a failure either,” Eric Berman, the managing director of Small Arms Survey, told IPS.

According to researchers, expansion in small arms trade is caused by both civilians and governments, with U.S. citizens spending more on small arms than ever and a concentrated handful of governments purchasing arms on a larger scale, mainly for armed forces involved in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Recreational hunters and other private individuals buy millions of imported rifles, shotguns and rounds of ammunition each year,” the survey said.

The 367-page long volume also presented a list of the main importers and exporters of SALW, with the United States topping both categories.

Despite the survey’s length, however, gathering data on SALW is no easy task, and the Small Arms Survey must deal with the overall lack of transparency of governments. The report pointed out that “in the past ten years, 29 countries published a national arms export report at least once; 25 of them are European states.” Of the non-European states, “only Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the U.S. have published national arms export reports.”

To address this problem, the Small Arms Survey’s experts created a transparency barometer, enabling them to evaluate each country’s willingness to share information.

“We’re still at a very low number, but the trend is upwards,” Berman told IPS. “The major exporters are improving their reporting and their data provision, and I’m optimistic that we’ll continue to gain greater bind from governments to share information,” he added.

The Small Arms Survey’s yearbook is then to be used as a resource for many, including governments and policy-makers. “It is usual for countries to use our data,” Small Arms Survey’s research director Anna Alvazzi del Frate told IPS. “It’s an instrument that helps them.”

The extensive volume broaches many topics, such as illicit small arms in war zones, Somali piracy, drug violence, guns in Latin America and the Caribbean, non-lethal firearm violence, Kazakhstan or the rise in private security companies, which all highlight the toll taken by SALW and the need to limit their number.

Despite the sheer volume of research and data collected by Small Arms Survey, however, much is left to be done to reduce SALW trade. The U.N. has made doing so a top priority, with Ban calling for an end to “the big problems caused by small arms”. With the recent failure in negotiations at the U.N. in July, however, perhaps the only certainty in the effort to curtail SALW trade is that significant challenges remain.

The European Parliament sent a bold message to the world last week with its comprehensive and ambitious resolution to put an end to the illicit global arms trade. But analysts regret the new resolution ignores several key factors, such as the impact of the arms trade on the socio-economic development of recipient countries, and the involvement of civil society in future negotiations.

Next month member states will gather at the United Nations headquarters in New York to negotiate the first binding Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a potentially ground-breaking humanitarian treaty regulating international trade in conventional weapons. Currently, there is no universal set of rules controlling the global arms trade.

According to several analysts the poorly-regulated market fuels armed conflicts and causes unnecessary human suffering. In order to address the problem, Nobel Peace laureates like the Dalai Lama, Betty Williams, Elie Wiesel and José Ramos- Horta – supported by international NGOs – have been actively advocating a binding global agreement since 1997.

According to data gathered by Control Arms, a global civil society alliance, one million of the eight million firearms produced every year are lost or stolen. As many as 747,000 people are killed in armed violence annually, while ten times that number are injured.

In March of this year the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute published a report showing that deliveries of conventional weapons to states in Africa had increased by an average of 110 percent during the last ten years. Deliveries to sub-Saharan Africa increased by 20 percent, while deliveries to North Africa increased by 273 percent.

The European Parliament voted Wednesday on the resolution the EU will propose at the upcoming U.N. conference. The text underlined Europe’s tremendous responsibility in the global arms trade, since EU member states account for about 30 percent of all arms exports and are among the world’s leading arms manufacturers.

The resolution also stressed that the new U.N. treaty should cover “the widest possible spectrum of conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons and all aspects and activities of trade.”

The Parliament called for the establishment of a U.N. support unit to monitor and report on global arms exchanges while tracing possible breaches of the treaty.

Furthermore, the European Parliament wants the ATT to include strong provisions requiring states to report on all arms transfer decisions and keep records for up to 20 years. Stringent anti-corruption and transparency mechanisms would also be necessary since, according to recent estimates, the arms trade accounts for almost 40 percent of corruption in all world trade.

Political hurdles

But according to experts, some key provisions have slipped through cracks in the ambitious text.

“Although this resolution is a strong (first step), we feel disappointed that it failed to highlight the need not to undermine the socio-economic development of recipient countries,” Nicolas Vercken, Oxfam’s advocacy officer on arms transfer control in Paris, told IPS.

Wim Zwijnenburg, advocacy officer on disarmament at IKV-Pax Christi in Amsterdam, added that the EU currently forbids “export (of arms) to states where socio-economic development is low but government spending is high. This criterion has disappeared from the new resolution”, likely because the European Parliament fears several non-EU countries will not accept such a provision at the upcoming U.N. meet.

Countries against the clause, usually major arms exporters or repressive regimes, claim the policy of forbidding export to economically underdeveloped countries is ‘neocolonial’, Zwijnenburg said – an argument that masks a desire to continue selling or acquiring weapons at virtually any cost.

“Exporting countries like Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Russia, China and India are against (this clause) because they want to protect their arms trade. Recipient countries like Zimbabwe, Syria and Egypt are against the clause because of their constant need for new weaponry. But most sub-Saharan states are in favour of the criterion,” he added.

Another troubling aspect of the resolution is that it fails to mention the involvement of civil society during future arms trade negotiations. “When an arms trade deal is discussed between two nations, countries like the United States or the United Kingdom have the capacity to bring a team of ten people to the talks, including economic and legal advisors,” Zwijnenburg said.

“Most African states don’t have this capacity. That’s why we need to involve civil society in these negotioations: to be able to support the poorest states, states that are in fact mostly developing nations suffering from conflict. The new resolution makes no mention of this. Considering the fact that NGOs started the process for a treaty in the first place, it would be a pity if we (are) to be excluded from now on,” he stressed.

Despite these flaws, experts are cautiously optimistic about the European resolution and the upcoming U.N. talks. “We’re going for gold,” Vercken told IPS. “Ten years ago nobody would have dared to dream we would have gotten this far, that we would have all states on board and heading for an international agreement.”

“But we know some states only want a weak or dysfunctional treaty. It is going to be tough. And if it turns out we are heading towards a weak treaty, we will remind the negotiating states we would rather have no treaty than a weak treaty. Because a weak treaty would do nothing else but legitimise current (efforts to regulate the arms market),” he added.

(END)

A U.S. Army M1A1 Abrams tank on a mission in Iraq in 2004. Credit: Public Domain

By Carey L. Biron
WASHINGTON, Jun 15 2012 (IPS)

The United States is set to far surpass previous records for defence sales this year, according to U.S. officials.

“Despite the global economic strain, demand for U.S. defence products and services is stronger than ever,” Andrew J. Shapiro, an assistant secretary in the U.S. State Department, said on Thursday.

He confirmed that the U.S., long the world’s largest weapons exporter, has already seen more than 50 billion dollars in government-to-government military sales this fiscal year.

“This represents at least a 20-billion-dollar increase over fiscal year 2011, and we still have more than a quarter of the fiscal year left,” Shapiro said, speaking with reporters. The current fiscal year will end in September.

“To put this in context, fiscal year 2011 was a record-setting year at just over 30 billion. This fiscal year will be at least 70 percent greater.”

Observers noted the administration’s evident pride at the high numbers.

“An Obama arms bazaar is going on – this is further evidence of that,” Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, an international civil-society alliance based in Washington, told IPS.

“This administration has made defence trade an economic rather than just a security issue – part of the agenda in terms of keeping the U.S. economy going. I think human rights issues should trump those concerns. Selling to countries such as Saudi Arabia, people need to ask whether the U.S. is living up to its promises on rights obligations.”

Shapiro, who noted that the U.S. only allows a sale “after we carefully examine issues like human rights”, spoke a week after the launch of the newest edition of the 655 Report, an annual compilation of defence products and services authorised for export.

Many have cautioned that the U.S. defence trade is notoriously difficult to estimate, given the numerous ways available to calculate the figure. Several point to a lower number of 30 billion dollars worth of actual transfers, rather than the larger sales number, not all of which may ultimately take place.

The latest figures are particularly buoyed by two contracts, with Saudi Arabia and Japan. The former was particularly significant, accounting for 29.4 billion dollars and including up to 84 advanced fighter aircraft. The Japanese sale, also for fighter aircraft, is worth around 10 billion dollars.

In a major priority for the U.S. government today, Shapiro noted that the Saudi Arabia deal alone would support more than 50,000 jobs.

The United States also recently concluded a first-of-its-kind military trade agreement with the United Kingdom, aimed at easing the bureaucratic red tape that typically surrounds U.S. military deals.

A similar agreement is in the offing with Australia, while new export plans being pushed by President Barack Obama’s administration could facilitate weapons sales to a host of other countries.

Expanded marketplace

While old allies continue to form a backbone of U.S. military sales, Washington diplomats appear to be engaging in an aggressive campaign to land lucrative arms deals with a host of rising economies.

“It’s no longer just our ambassadors who promote U.S. security cooperation abroad. Senior State Department officials regularly advocate on behalf of the U.S. bidders on foreign government and foreign military procurements,” Shapiro said.

“We have seen tremendous growth and sales with developing countries and emerging powers such as Brazil and India, and this speaks volumes about our diplomatic efforts.”

At this week’s U.S.-India strategic dialogue here in Washington, U.S. officials pressed their Indian counterparts hard not only on increasing defence sales – currently at nine billion dollars – but also on moving forward on co-development and co-production of military equipment.

In a joint communiqué, the two states “reaffirmed their desire to strengthen defense cooperation through increased technology transfer, collaborative joint research and development, and co-production of defense items.”

Arms dealers around the world are said to be working overtime to try to gain access to the Indian market. Paul Holtom, a researcher with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS that SIPRI has named India “the world’s number one arms importer” between 2007 and 2011.

According to Control Arms’ Jeff Abramson, “We’re definitely seeing the U.S. trying to move into new markets that, in the past, the country didn’t have as much play in. In fact, all global suppliers are trying to do that, trying to get into markets such as India. This gets to the need for a strong Arms Trade Treaty.”

Movement towards this treaty, known as ATT, has been slowly taking place since 2003, when a group of Nobel Peace Prize laureates highlighted that the vast majority of international trade was more highly regulated than the international arms trade.

According to Amnesty International, a watchdog group, today it is easier to trade in weapons than in bananas.

In 2006, 153 countries at the U.N. General Assembly approved initial discussions on the ATT. Final negotiations are now supposed to take place over the course of July at the United Nations in New York.

In an open letter sent in May, 50 NGOs called on President Obama “to help reduce the human suffering and instability caused by the lack of an effective international legal regulatory framework on conventional arms transfers.”

While the Obama administration officially supports passage of the ATT – a turnaround from the era of George W. Bush – the letter highlights the need for the ATT to cover small-scale ammunition, which the United States currently opposes.

A recent report by Oxfam International, an advocacy group, warns that if the ATT that does not control ammunition, a 4.3-billion-dollar per year sector, the treaty “will not achieve its purposes … The international trade in ammunition is even less accountable and transparent than the trade in arms.”

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is sending the wrong signal to the government of Bahrain in proceeding with a partial sale of new arms to Manama, according to human rights activists and some lawmakers here.

Their reaction followed Friday’s announcement by the State Department that it had cleared a number of items for transfer out of a 53- million-dollar arms package that the administration originally announced last September but subsequently held up due to opposition from key members of Congress.

In announcing what it called the “renewal of U.S. security cooperation with Bahrain”, the State Department stressed that none of the weapons approved for transfer could be used in the kingdom’s ongoing efforts to suppress growing unrest on the island, especially among its majority Shi’a community.

Demonstrations have been taking place on an almost nightly basis in Shi’a villages in recent weeks and have increased in violence, with some youths throwing Molotov cocktails at police, and with police firing tear gas and birdshot to disperse the protests, with sometimes fatal results.

“Given the continued deterioration in the human rights situation there, we think it’s a bad call to be releasing arms – any sort of arms – to Bahrain at this time,” Joe Stork, a veteran Middle East specialist at Human Rights Watch (HRW), told IPS.

“We’re very concerned with the signal that this sends both to the Bahraini government and the Bahraini people,” said Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED).

“And we’re very disappointed that this announcement was not accompanied by an announcement of any real progress on reform issues, including the numerous recommendations made by the Bassiouni Commission that have yet to be implemented,” he said.

He was referring to the Bahraini Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) that was chaired by the noted Egyptian-American jurist, Cherif Bassiouni and which last November issued a nearly 500-page report on serious human rights abuses committed by government forces during its Saudi-backed crackdown against the pro-democracy movement last winter and spring.

Among its most important recommendations, it called for the immediate release of hundreds of people imprisoned for exercising their right to free speech or peaceful assembly and for the investigation and prosecution of officials at all levels responsible for serious abuses, including torture and unlawful killings.

While officials who briefed journalists here declined to specify what arms will be transferred or their value, they insisted that they could be used only for Bahrain’s external defence, presumably against Iran.

According to foreignpolicy.com’s well-connected “Cable” blog, they will likely include six harbour patrol boats, communications equipment for Bahrain’s U.S.-designed air-defence system, ground- based radars, air-to-air-missile systems, Seahawk helicopters, air- defence systems, parts for F-16 fighter engines and Cobra helicopters, and night-vision equipment.

“The items that we are releasing are not used for crowd control,” State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said in a statement that noted that Washington remained “mindful of the fact that there a number of serious unresolved human rights issues that the Government of Bahrain needs to address.”

She noted, in particular, that TOW missiles and Humvees that were part of the original package would not be transferred.

The announcement appeared to be timed to the visit last week of Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, the ostensible purpose of which was to witness his son’s graduation from American University but who also met with top administration officials, including Vice President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defence Secretary Leon Panetta whose particular concern is the future of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain.

The U.S.-educated crown prince has long been considered the leader of the reformist faction in the royal family, which, unlike most Bahrainis, is Sunni Muslim.

Washington has tried to bolster his position vis-à-vis the Saudi- backed hardliners, who reportedly are led by the world’s longest- serving prime minister, Khalifa ibn Sulman al Khalifa. King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, who committed himself publicly to implementing the recommendations of the Bassiouni Commission in November, is generally believed to side with the crown prince.

“(The announcement) gave Salman something to take back, but indirectly signalled the old guard that the young prince, not his great uncle, is the preferred interlocutor with Washington,” according to Emile Nakhleh, a former top Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst for the Near East and South Asia, who last month called for Washington to begin pulling the Fifth Fleet out of Bahrain to distance itself from the Gulf’s autocratic Sunni monarchies.

But whether the gesture will have the desired effect in the internal deliberations of the royal family is not clear at all.

“Of course, to save face, the old guard has touted the release of the arms as a sign that they are still in Washington’s graces,” noted Nakhleh, while Stork told IPS that he had “no basis for thinking it would make a positive difference.”

“There’s every reason to think that they (the hardliners) would just keep the crown prince in the drawer and send him to Washington to pick up the goodies,” Stork added.

Indeed, on the eve of the crown prince’s visit here, security forces arrested Nabeel Rajab, the head of the non-governmental Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, on his return from meeting in Lebanon with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. The detention was based on his “tweets” encouraging individuals to take part in peaceful demonstrations and allegedly “insulting” the Interior Ministry.

His arrest followed that of Zainab Al Khawaja, the daughter of another veteran human rights activist, Abdulhadi Al Khawaja, who has been on a hunger strike for more than three months to protest his conviction – now on appeal – and life sentence for allegedly trying to violently overthrow the monarchy.

“The Bahraini government continues to imprison political opponents…,” noted Rep. Jim McGovern, one of the lawmakers who pressed the administration to suspend its arms sales last fall.

“(P)roviding more arms sends the wrong signal about America’s commitment to human rights,” he said.

Friday’s announcement also came just before Monday’s meeting in Riyadh of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) where Saudi King Abdullah was expected to press his call for a regional to transform the Council from a joint security arrangement to a political confederation – an initiative for which thus far only Bahrain has expressed much enthusiasm.

Riyadh, which is connected to Bahrain by a causeway, deployed more than 1,000 of its police and troops to its neighbour as a reserve force during last year’s crackdown, and hundreds are believed to remain there.

“It’s clear that Saudi Arabia is trying to expand its hegemony over the rest of the GCC, beginning with Bahrain,” according to Nakhleh.

“Prime Minister Khalifa and his supporters within the ruling family no longer seem to care about the sovereignty of Bahrain or its historically liberal tradition. Their main concern is their own survival,” he told IPS in an email exchange.

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

(END)